Thought about the idea of changing the 2.5 rating description of r"AVERAGE" to "MEDIOCRE." rSometimes I have a hard time rating things ras average because, although they deserve the r2.5 rating, I do not feel rthe album sounds "average," or like other albums. I just think it's not rall rthat good, but it's not poor either. It's mediocre. Or something else, rmaybe. Thoughts?rrList is mediocre and/or average.

thats why you have the .5 buffer between 2.5 and 3, otherwise we might as well start rating 2.1 2.2 2.3 etc, not all albums are gonna fit perfectly with that description but chaning the name is not gonna change anything.

"Agreed. 3 is a more fair "average" rating imo. Also 3.5 should be "good", not "great". Everything else is fine though."

we don't need more possible negative ratings. there's only so many ways we can say "I don't enjoy this" and I really don't get why this site is obsessed with categorising albums they don't like so finely

Yeah, so what I'm trying to say is Average doesn't fully do a 2.5 rating justice. Because I might say that an album is 2.5 but that doesn't mean you shouldn't think twice about it. It may sound original in its delivery, however, it just isn't really all that good. It's mediocre. Average just makes it sound run-of-the-mill, nothing new, when mediocre doesn't imply that.

I mean, 5 positive levels is good, 4 negative levels should be enough as well i mean i speak for myself when i say i'm usually not that specific about how much i dislike something so i think it's just right

Well put SpaceMan, but i still feel like 5 positive levels and 4 negative levels are just fine. I mean
average/passable/mediocre or wtv being a 3 would mean it would represent a 5/10, or 50% percentage. I
like to think of "average" as a 40%-55%, and the "good" level as like 55%-65% or smth like that. So a
3 still feels a little too much to call "average" as it is actually not a positive connotation imo,
but one on the negative side for the most part

"I dunno why people want to have more diff ratings for bad albums. Why does it matter if it's a 1.5 or 1? It sucks anyway and the rating says what it has to :]"

Agreed. I only use 1.5 because 1 seems too bad, but 1.5 shouldn't even exist. it should be taken as 2 is bad, 1 is just on the lowest tier of bad. I can't even tell the difference between 1.5 and 1 tbh, it's just a matter of conscience lel

To me, 1 means they not only contributed nothing, but made the world worse by making that album. T-Pain gets a 1.5 because it's stupid but doesn't really hurt anyone; Nickelback gets a 1 because it encourages people to think like Chaddy Kreuger and treat women as objects and throw their lives away.

remember that someone in the universe was literally concerned enough about this problem to spend time making a list with a paragraph included and that equally concerned people responded with paragraphs

"remember that someone in the universe was literally concerned enough about this problem to spend time making a list with a paragraph included and that equally concerned people responded with paragraphs"